INSTRUCTION
stringlengths 11
999
| RESPONSE
stringlengths 0
999
| SOURCE
stringlengths 16
38
| METADATA
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
Turning down an invitation: grammar question
**Turning down an invitation**
For some reason I got it into my head that `` was a way to turn down an invitation.
But for example say you were asked to do X at time Y, and you want to do X but time Y doesn't work for you. You can say ``: in this case "4 o' clock is a little bit inconvenient".
Why does one use the particle and the other the particle ? Or am I just completely incorrect and it should be `` all along?
|
This does not denote the subject here, instead it means "but". "I'm sorry, but ... (insert reason, or leave it unsaid which is most common)".
For the latter case, "4 o'clock" is the topic, which is why is used. is never correct, unless you want to say something completely different.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "particles"
}
|
いつ and とき how to tell when to use which
My book has one example of the use of the second one; , which essentially is asking when you were in high school were you a good student though i am confused why instead of but that is a whole nother problem.
I doubt its as simple as one is a current tense and one is a past tense when. perhaps one is the question when and the other is a time when?
I have no idea what to tag this please fix for me.
|
You're on the right track. is an interrogative, a question word. It's used to ask when something happened or will happen, not to talk about a particular time period. In English, we say:
> _When_ I was in high school.
In Japanese, it's:
> __
(There's nothing wrong with saying ; it's just a little less common, probably because it's an extra word. In English, you can say, "Back in high school" or "When I was in high school" or "When I was a high school student...")
and are never interchangeable. For example, you can say:
>
When is the class? If you replaced with , the sentence would make no sense.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "english to japanese, questions, time"
}
|
「素早い」と「早い」ってどう違いますか？
>
> The girl quickly takes a look around and assumes a defensive stance.
: ****
|
is a more general term used to mean 'fast'. It can also mean 'early', as in 'early in the morning' (.
specifically refers to the time taken to perform an action - an English equivalent adverb would be 'quickly', but also would mean 'deftly' or 'nimbly', and I would say in my experience implies a degree of efficiency - in your example, the girl's quick judgement of the situation.
They have slightly different applications, and although I would say they are interchangeable in this instance without sounding _too_ off, is a bit more precise.
Hope this helps!
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation, word choice, words, usage, nuances"
}
|
Translation of basic sentence confused on subject placement
I am attempting to translate some sentence and got some weird solutions.
1) There is a post office over there. There is a bank, too.
I guess what I am saying is there (over there) is a post office. Apparently the correct solution is I am assuming in this context "there" is a place why can't I use wa?
2) There's professor yamashita in front of high school students.
Why can't I start this sentence with isn't he the subject of the sentence? I think one has to write but then I have no idea what the subject of the sentence is?
|
1. You're missing a particle in the "correct" answers:
> __
The particle marks the location in which something exists. The particle marks the subject.
2. Professor Yamashita is the subject of the sentence. In Japanese, when the subject appears in the sentence (and very often it doesn't!), it can be marked with or , depending on the context. Because Prof. Yamashita is marked with in this sentence, it implies that you weren't already talking about him; i.e., he's not the existing _topic_ (which is marked with ). Here's a valid, if stilted, conversation:
> Q:
> A:
I say stilted because you wouldn't really repeat the topic in the answer, although in a language class you're obviously expected to follow particular forms. Here's a somewhat more natural response:
> A:
Note that Prof. Yamashita is the subject of this sentence even though he doesn't appear in it. This is completely normal in Japanese.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, translation"
}
|
Meaning of にして in these sentences
From what I understand, can mean "and" or it stresses a period of time during which something happens. However, I found some sentences where the meaning of is totally different, and so, I am not sure if I understood correctly the meaning of .
>
>
>
|
According to the entry for , it has two separate derivations which are used in different ways. There is the form derived from the indirect object particle , which is the usage you mentioned that can indicate a place or time, and there is the form derived from the old copula , which is roughly equivalent in meaning to modern , and covers the "and" meaning you mention.
In this case, I think we're looking at two slightly different usages of the sense. In the first usage, **** would convey the same meaning of "only one who is a genius like Beethoven (could write such a composition)", and the latter usage could be rephrased as **** ( on its own doesn't really work, but I guess the form itself has enough of an emphatic nuance that the is not necessary).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
「ヘト」という意味はなんですか。
I tried looking up in the sentence but that didn’t yield much results towards my comprehension on the matter.
I know the sentence means something like “The corridor lead to the sky terrace.” But I don’t understand why the use of instead of just .
I already read an answer on a similar question on StackExchange (link to source here) but, although I really appreciate the answers on that question, I still don’t understand it.
Thank you for reading and possibly helping me.
|
> I don’t understand why the use of instead of just .
Okay, let's try using "just " and see what happens
> ****
I can only parse this as "sky terrace _and_ continuing corridor". continuing from and to where? Nobody knows. So, this sentence does not make much sense to me.
However, if we take the original:
> ****
Then it's clearly "corridor continuing _to (towards)_ the sky terrace", which makes much more sense.
As for why `` instead of just ``, see the discussion you linked. Personally, it feels like it specifies both direction and the end point, i.e. the corridor continues towards and until the sky terrace, ending there.
A few examples from weblio:
> Public opinion swayed **towards** declaring war on Russia.
>
> ****
>
> we ran head over heels **toward** the shelter
>
> ****
>
> She shopped around from store **to** store.
>
> ****
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, meaning, word choice, usage, nuances"
}
|
Using ～なくなった vs. ～ない
>
What does add? I'm parsing as or the negative form of to become. So loosely it sounds like, "you will lose the ability to leave"
>
Is this the same or correct when just using , not allowed to leave
|
The verb , which is a key verb in the language, always describes a change of state as in:
A turns into B.
A becomes more/less (adjective).
Situation A changes to situation B.
> {}{}{}{} ****
This sentence talks about a (fairly recent) change of state as below:
**Old state** : One was free to leave or was about to leave.
_Something happens that changes all that_. ← Perhaps a new piece of information has come in.
**Present state** : One cannot leave until the authenticity of the information has been verified.
Old state ⇒⇒ New state
++ in the past tense
Thus your first sentence means something along the lines of:
> "It has (just) become impossible for me/us to leave until the authenticity of the information has been verified."
Your second sentence:
>
says nothing about a change of state (like your first sentence does). It just means:
> "One cannot leave until the authenticity of the information has been verified."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "negation"
}
|
Use of kanji when writing 言う
I've been reading more novels in Japanese recently (: recommended!), and have noticed that it's unusual for to be written in kanji. Not just in set phrases like and but in attributions such as
My question: are there any situations where it's required or would be more natural or unambiguous to write rather than ? If I'm emailing a friend would it seem pretentious to use the kanji?
|
Here's an excerpt I found: <
> Similarly, while as a word is more often written in kanji, in nominalizing and similar uses is usually written in kana.
>
> These uses are probably somewhat related to the fact that **common verbs attached to other verbs are very often written in kana**. So is common but it is nearly always , not rather than .
Also,
> Whenever you are in doubt, use Denshi Jisho or Rikaisama (or Rikaichan -kun -tan). All of them flag some words with “uk” or “usually written in kana alone”. If you aren’t sure where to use kanji, simply make sure to write these words in kana.
Personally when I email a friend in Japanese, I don't use the kanji. However, when I email a teacher, I tend to use it because for some reason to me it feels more proper and formal.
( But this is my own preference and may not reflect other's tendencies.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "kanji, orthography"
}
|
What does どしゅっ mean?
I'm reading through this one story where it takes place in the feudal era of Japan. Two men are travelling through a forest and carrying a secret letter. An army of female ninja try to sneak up on them. But one of the men can smell them, so he closes his eyes and concentrates. Detecting the location one of them, he throws his sword like an arrow, and hits her. Then he readies himself for the rest of them.
At that point, the narration says “!” I'm guessing that this is an interjection of some sort. I tried to look it up, but it doesn't seem to be listed in the dictionaries. There are websites featuring it, but they don't have any explanations for it in Japanese or any other language.
Does anyone know what it means?
|
Judging from the context, should be the onomatopoeia for the sound of a knife or sword "properly" penetrating one's body.
The more commonly-used variants would be and .
For all of those, the pitch accent is placed on the **second** syllable.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning, definitions"
}
|
Why do you use に with 欲しい?
I recently encountered the sentence , which means “I want you to be happy.” Why is used to mark “you”? If you rephrase the sentence as , the meaning still comes through but the drops out. So why is the used in the first variation? Do similar patterns exist for Vstem and/or other adjectives?
|
Think of as a version of . For example:
>
"I want my teacher to teach me calculus." Or more literally, "I want to receive the favor of my teacher teaching me calculus."
The person doing the favor is marked with . Same with . In both of these expressions, you're probably not used to seeing the "giver" marked with a particle, because they're more often just addressed directly to that person.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "particles, particle に, adjectives, i adjectives"
}
|
The meaning ところを見るに
> **** []{}[]{}
I've seen that after conjugated verbs quite a few times now, but don't quite get what it means. It doesn't seem to a shortening of or . Is this a case of ? If so, why is the being replaced by ?
What i've got is:
> Judging from the fact that (he/Kiyonosuke) doesn't seem to be waiting for us, I'd say Uematsu Rikako has yet to come out (of her house).
But that always confuses me.
|
in this context is a conjunctive particle that connects a preface/introduction to a conclusion/opinion.
In meaning, =in this sentence. The difference is that using would make it more informal.
The translation provided looks good. The "judging from" part actually captures the nuance of this well.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, translation, particle に"
}
|
What is the function of で in this sentence?
If the purpose is to have the meaning "unlimitedly", Since is an adjectival noun we should use to turn it into an adverb instead of if I'm not mistaken... ? ![enter image description here](
|
It seems you may be overanalyzing the phrase a little bit. Grammatically speaking,
> {}
is just a
> "Noun + Particle"
That is to say that is not really formed by conjugation. The phrase certainly functions adverbially, but it is **_not_** an adverb per se. You may be letting the English translation " ** _unlimitedly_** " fool you even though that is a valid translation.
**The function of the particle here is to describe the situation/condition in which an action is performed. That is indeed a fairly standard use of .**
One of my mottoes uses the same . It is {} **** {}, which means " ** _Don't go to the supermarket hungry!_** ". (That is because I would tend to purchase too many things if I went to one hungry.)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Are these sources wrong about the usage of ただ and だけ?
In this old question, it is said that **NOUN** and **NOUN** are used thus:
> If you meant to say, "It's just an ordinary snake" or the like, it needs to be **** If you meant "It's only a snake", as in a case where you were expecting a Yeti, it would be ****
However, in this article, the author says it's the other way around under the same circumstance:
> Saying “It’s just a rock.”
> Wrong:
> Right:
I read the article on NihongoShark first last month, so I am quite annoyed now to see that people seem to disagree on something that I thought was meant to be a simple, and common usage. Personally, I find NihongoShark's detailed explanation and given context more convincing. However, since I once saw a few unnatural expressions on the website (can't remember what they were anymore), I have to take everything with a grain of salt. `Whose claim do you agree with?`
|
NihongoShark's explanation does not seem to conflict with the first question. is "It's just a rock" in the sense of "That is merely an ordinary rock (and not a golem/coin/etc)".
would usually mean "There are only rocks here, nothing else (but I'm actually looking for something else)" or something like that. means "There are only snakes around here (but I'm not interested in snakes now)".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words"
}
|
Use of ある in this sentence?
The sentence reads , and the translation given was "Any and all restaurants that are here are not tasty." When the word is used here, how is it able to modify restaurant so that it means "the restaurants that are here"? Is it just because of where it is placed in the sentence? Could this work with other verbs, like saying to mean "the people who eat here"?
|
Judging from your previous questions, perhaps this is the first time you learn about _relative clauses_. Once you know this keyword, you can find lots of good articles about this topic. Yes, literally means "the restaurant(s) that exist(s) here". A more natural translation is simply "restaurants around here".
> Restaurants exist here.
> restaurants that exist here
As you have correctly guessed, means "the people who eat here".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, relative clauses"
}
|
Meaning of ガチのM
Context: some schoolgirls are talking about a girl that is dating a boy that killed someone when he was younger.
> **M**?
The only meaning of I could find was "serious, diligent", but I don't think it fits the context. Judging from what the girl says () and from results in Google for M, I guess the M stands for masochism. Is this correct? If yes, could you explain the meaning of and how it can be used to form words? Thank you for your help!
|
Yes this M stands for _masochist_. This initialism is very common in Japanese, and people don't usually bother to say or in conversations. In this context M primarily means the girl is a type of person who willingly take troubles and put herself in a hard situation. Of course the last sentence has a sexual meaning.
is _genuine_ , _true_ , or _real_ rather than _diligent_. is from a sumo-term , which is an antonym for . So "not a fake/mock" is the original meaning of .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning, words, katakana"
}
|
What is the difference between dono hito and donata?
I got to know that dono hito specifically asks about a person while donata is for who in general, so does taht imply to all living beings? Are both used in formal conversations?(If yes, which is preferable?)
|
(dono hito) is "which person", (donata) is "who".
(dono) by itself is "which". You use when you want to select the correct one among three or more options. is used when you are seeing three or more people and want to know which is the right person.
> (Dono hon desu ka?)
> Which book (do you want)?
is a polite version of (dare), which just means "who". You use when you ask who someone is, who comes, who will do a job, etc.
> (Donata desu ka?)
> Who's there? / Who is she? / etc.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "expressions, politeness"
}
|
What is the intonation variation for 居る vs 要る?
I hear some people pronounce both and low-HIGH, and others I have heard pronouncing as HIGH-low. Can you clarify whether these are correct, if the variations are regional or not, or if there is some other explanation for variation?
|
In Standard Japanese both words are pronounced {LH}.
In Nagoya which is where I currently reside, however, ("to be, to stay") is pronounced {HL} and ("to be necessary") is pronounced {LH}.
So, your observation seems correct. Accents change regionally just like the colors of miso soup change regionally.
The words that are pronounced {HL} instead in Standard Japanese are ("to roast"), ("to shoot an arrow"), ("to cast metal"), etc.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "intonation"
}
|
how to make a statement with two verbs
i would like to say i came here to study or learn Japanese (language) and to play go. the best i have come up with is above which says to study both; i know how to say each sentence separately how i want but cant seem to figure out how to combine them as it would us two verbs. any help much appreciated.
|
If these are not necessarily the only two things you came here to do, or if you do these repeatedly, you could use the representative (-) form of the verbals:
>
->
> i would like to say i came here to study or learn Japanese (language) and to play go
{}{}{}{}(or, depending on the situation, )
You could also invert it like: {}{}{}
The representative might not cover every situation in which you're talking about doing two activities. But it sounds like it could be used in your situation.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "sentence"
}
|
What is the difference between 倒産 and 破産?
Is there any difference in usage or are they pretty much interchangeable?
|
means "to go bankrupt", that is they can't keep the company in existence because of the company's debts.
If a company go bankrupt, there are three ways that the company's creditors can deal with the company after that.
One of them is . A bankrupt company's all assets are exchanged to money and they are divided among the company's creditors. And the company can't exist.
Source: <
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
Has a noun been dropped here? 「お店で食べた奴のがおいしかった」
I was reading a manga where the character brings back some food as a souvenir from a recent trip. She is eating it with her family, but in the margin she makes a small comment:
I am confused by this statement because normally is used to nominalize a verb phrase. Since is already a noun, it doesn't need to be nominalized.
This leads me to think that some noun is being dropped from her sentence, which could make sense since she is talking casually with her family.
My best guess would be that the noun is , because then the complete sentence would be **** , or "the one I ate in the store was **more** delicious."
Is this the correct interpretation? Or am I way off? And finally, is it common for Japanese people to drop nouns like this when speaking casually?
|
> {}{}{} ****
in this context is indeed the present-day contraction of {} that has been used quite commonly by the younger generation for the last couple of decades.
Thus, the sentence means:
> "The one(s)/stuff we ate at the shop was more delicious (than what we are eating now)."
There is no nominalization occuring here; There is only the "lazy" dropping of the word .
> And finally, is it common for Japanese people to drop nouns like this when speaking casually?
No, not really. We cannot generalize things like that upon our observation of the dropping of one particular word.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "nouns"
}
|
Checking skit translation
I am trying to make a skit with a group and this is what they have decided they want the beginning to be.
We are very new to Japanese, taking a compressed class this summer and are having trouble composing the sentences correctly.
Would anyone mind checking it out and see how we did in our translations?
The things in bold I am particularly concerned about.
> _N trips_
>
> N:
>
> A:
>
> B: Do you need me to call an ambulance?
>
> **N: No I don't need an ambulance. I'm fine.**
>
> N:
>
> **A: I am Rich. This is (my friend) Jason.** This doesn't even say what i want. I believe it says, "I am Rich, this is Jason. At the very least I think the last line should be
>
> B:
>
> Aeeh?
>
> **B:** **I am joking** , where do you come from? I would like this to be more natural like i am obviously joking perhaps ,?
>
> N:
>
> A/B:
|
>
Suggestion:
> A:
This would mean, "I'm Rich. This is Jason. He is my friend."
Don't use "kore" for a person, use "kochira". Also, beware of . is the correct hiragana for "wa" particle usage.
"" would mean, "I am Jason's friend."
Suggestion: "My name is Rich. This is my friend Jason."
> B:
Suggestion:
This still sounds unnatural to me to have these two right next to each other. I fixed the hiragana spelling of joudan and changed it to "da yo". If you two are friends you should use the casual copula and "yo" for emphasis.
> N:
Suggestion: (I came from Canada.)
> A/B:
`Suggestion: `
Sou desu ne implies that you already knew he came from Canada, and you are agreeing with them.
Sou desu ka means that you didn't know before, "Is that so?"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": -1,
"tags": "sentence"
}
|
I don't understand the role of the に particle in this sentence?
The definition of given in an article by NHK News Web Easy is
> .
I don't know what is the role of the particle in that sentence, is it marking the subject of the action, or is it rethorical? How should it be interpreted?
|
Santiago, **** reads like a clause to me, within the sentence . ... Although if that were the case I'm not sure why they wouldn't just write it as **** .
in any case, I parse this definition as "to gather people or items by calling out **to** a large group of people"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "particles, particle に"
}
|
どれ as an attribute
I found this sentence and I wonder whether I understand it correctly:
> ****
The there looks to me like “whichever” or “all”, so I’d get the sentence as “Let me look at all the wounds on your belly…” However I could not find a fitting example in a dictionary, so I am not sure.
If there’d be , I’d have no doubts, as it then simply means “any”. But this sentence has no and is not negative.
So, do I get it right? Does this use of question word as an attribute of a noun mean “any, all”?
|
> **** {}{}{}
You are "seeing" the wrong here, which is the ("which one") from .
This is an _**interjection**_ meaning " _ **now**_ ", " _ **well**_ ", " _ **let's see**_ ", etc. It is most often used when checking on or taking a (close) look at something. We also say , etc. for the same purpose.
_**" Now, let me see the wound on your tummy. I'll put some herbal medicine on it for you**_."
The author could have (or rather should have) inserted a comma right after the for clarity's sake.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 13,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "grammar, words, interjections, interrogatives, attributive"
}
|
What is the difference between ぶつ, 叩く, and 殴る?
I have found a question regarding these words here:
versus in a JLPT question
Which mostly deals with idioms, however.
So far as I understand it means somewhat violent beating and punching. What about the other two?
There are questions like this on the Hinative and the other Japanese sites, but I'm having trouble comprehending the answers and making a good distinction between the synonyms. Here are similar threads if these are of any help:
<
<
|
* is a neutral word that can be used also with inanimate objects, such as a button, a drum, and a keyboard. It's not necessarily violent nor strong, so you can safely say ("to clap"), ("to tap/massage one's shoulder").
* is a definitely violent and offensive verb meaning attacking someone with a fist or a blunt weapon. It's usually used with animate objects, but someone really mad may do , , etc.
* is relatively uncommon among the three, and is almost always used with animate objects. It's not necessarily that violent, but implies a strong hit, anyway. For example sounds more "educational" to me than . You can also say .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "synonyms, word usage"
}
|
Understanding 分かる in this sentence
> ****
> According to the police, in this test, in around 1 year, there were 57099 people who were told that they might have a brain disease called dementia. 1892 of these people _knew they had dementia because a doctor had tested them_.
I'm having trouble understanding the sentence in bold. The translation is my best guess. My understanding of is a bit shaky. Does this sentence suggest that the 1892 people already knew they had dementia **before** they took the police test, or does it imply that those people went to the doctor **after** the police test and were then confirmed as having dementia? (putting aside the fact that a person diagnosed with dementia might still not _know_ they have dementia).
|
This is close to (become clear) rather than "know". So means "It became clear that 1892 of these people had dementia because a doctor had tested them."
We can't know why they took police test and when they knew they had dementia just from this sentence.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "reading comprehension"
}
|
extending an invitation with alot of information in it
EDIT: The invitation is being extending to someone called N that A/B has just met the invitation is being extended by A to N as B is already going.
Would you like to goto Denny’s restaurant (after class?) _invitation_ Would like to change to. “my friend works at Denny’s restaurant. We are going there after class would you like to come?
can anyone help me with this sentence i realize i am obviously missing and some effective way of putting it into the sentence as well as but i am having trouble making such a big sentence. am fairly new to Japanese language like lesson 6 of genki up to te form if that makes any sense to anyone.
perhaps it would be better to say "our friend works at dennys." we are going there after class. would you like to come?
|
In Japanese, pronouns like I/we/they/you and so on are rarely spoken. Instead they depend on context and verb conjugation to convey who it is they are talking about. So I wouldn't worry very much about whether to say "my" vs. "our".
I think the simplest version of what you're trying to say would be:
{}{}{}
Choosing this phrasing, I'm assuming the person you're speaking to already knows or is standing with you and all the people who are part of "minna". If they do not know your group of friends who are going, then instead of , you could use //{} instead, which indicates you and some other people, possibly including some unknown people.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "sentence"
}
|
How to understand ...だけで...できる
> **** ****
>
> ****
* * *
These are sentences which are found in textbook.
I'm confusing in these two sentences.
Here's my understanding.
* * *
In first sentence.
> You can enjoy Karaoke with your friends, other **people also are allowed**
>
> You can enjoy Karaoke with your friends, other **people are denied**
In second sentence.
> You can press this button, you also **can press other buttons**
>
> You can press this button, you **are not allowed to press other buttons**
Which is the correct way to understand?
|
means "You can enjoy Karaoke with only your friends". It means others are not allowed to join in the karaoke.
means "You have only to press the button." It doesn't refer to whether you can press other buttons or not.
If you want to mean …()…, you can use this phrase "just by ing". For example, I can tell what you're thinking just by looking at you.().
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Is there an onomatopoeia of mumbling in japanese?
I was watching an anime, and they use repetitions of "" everytime a character is mumbling. Is this the rule for japanese or it's just something made up for a particular anime/manga?
|
For mumbling, there are , etc. Those three are commonly used.
If you did not know, we have an onomatopoeia for "everything" including things that do not even make any actual sound.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 15,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "onomatopoeia"
}
|
Is there another meaning for 逃げるな？
I know it means don't run away or sth similar.
I wonder does it has another meaning like--(just run away)?
**Update**
For example,
|
>
It can mean either "Don't run away/escape" (negative imperative) or "(I think) ~~ will run away/escape". It depends on the context. For example...
**** -- would be interpreted as "Don't go".
**** -- would be interpreted as "Birds will/may escape".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning, particle な"
}
|
What is the meaning of 「そーれっ」
I am reading a manga and two characters are playing badminton. They take turns hitting the birdie, and each time they hit it, they say.
This word is actually in the WWWJDIC dictionary, with a definition of "oof; umph; whoosh". There was also a note in the margin of the English transliteration of the manga I found that said it's like a happy grunt.
I am still a little confused. I think I have heard (or a variation of it) used as a way of saying, "take that!", like a form of smack talk when doing some kind of move.
How does relate to this? Is it really like a happy grunt, or is it more like smack talk?
|
or (same difference) is a sound made, similar to 'oomph', 'here you go', and 'take that', normally made when hitting something. Happy or not depends on context. Manga margin translations are probably not the most reliable of sources.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
What's the use of ね in the following two sentences?
>
I understand as _is it?_ or _isn't it_ (I think it has other uses)?
But in the example above:
> I will go to bed early.
I can't see any possible use for . Maybe it could act as "okay?" But I'm not very sure.
|
First, consider this brief citation from the Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar:
>
>
> A sentence final particle that indicates the speaker's request for confirmation or agreement from the hearer about some shared knowledge.
Second, consider that here might be better translated as "soon".
Of course there's no perfect direct translation of , but your choice of "okay?" seems reasonable in this case.
Putting it together:
> I'm going to bed soon, okay?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "particles"
}
|
Can the word 物 refer to a person?
In the [] part of this page :
![enter image description here](
|
No. can't mean a human. It explains and individually.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "words"
}
|
The usage of 'も' in a question
I'm really new to learning Japanese, so can answers be kept simple, please. I just learned about '' as far as I am aware, this means 'also' or 'as well', my question concerns its usage in a basic question statement.
My understanding is that this means "I am Japanese, is Midoriya also Japanese?" Since I am using '', do I also need to use '', or does it replace its declarative function?
****
There may be a whole lot more than this that I am cocking up though
|
_replaces_ .
* replaces and . (there is an exception, but you can forget it for now)
* is used in combination with other particles including , , , , etc.
> ****
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, usage"
}
|
Why is そんなに the best answer in「（いくら・そんなに・どんなに）笑わなくてもいいじゃありませんか。」?
Consider the following question from (N3):
>
>
> a
>
> b
>
> c
According to the theory associated with the exercise:
should be followed by
should be followed by
should be followed by
However, when we look at the question above, the example sentence includes _both_ and ~. According to the answer key, is the best answer... but why?
|
Well, this may not be a very good question if there is not enough prior context. Saying / is also perfectly grammatical, and actually makes sense in a certain context.
> *
> You don't have to laugh like that.
> (Please, don't laugh at me like that!)
> *
>
> No matter how [someone] won't laugh/smile, that's okay, isn't it?
> (Being unwilling to smile is not a problem, huh?)
>
The latter would make sense, for example, when you are protecting a person who stubbornly refuses to smile in front of a TV camera.
Still, in a test like this, you are expected to give the most "likely" answer, so I will definitely choose if I had to choose one.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What's the meaning of 私でもたまに in the following sentence?
I'm a bit confused about this sentence:
>
This part is easy: . It means "the Japanese (language) in (the book) The Setting Sun ..."
But this second bit confuses me a lot: . I read it as: "I ... but occasionally ... difficult." What?
What's the meaning of in this sentence?
(Maybe it means "but occasionally, I find it difficult?" If that's the case, shouldn't be placed before ?)
|
This usage of is the form of plus 'even'.
Some examples (from Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar):
>
>
> Even a teacher makes mistakes.
>
>
>
> I will even do a difficult job.
>
>
>
> Even from here you can see Mt. Fuji.
Therefore, is something like "even if it's me".
Putting it all together, we could translate it to something like:
> The Japanese (language) in (the book) The Setting Sun, even to me is occasionally difficult.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, set phrases"
}
|
Meaning of いいようにしなさい
Someone did tell me this:
>
However, how is it actually translated?
Could it be:
> It's alright if it's Ryu's
> I don't mind if it's Ryu's
Thank you
|
> {}
is a fixed expression meaning " ** _to do as one pleases_** ".
So, the phrase in question means:
> "Do as you please, Ryuu-chan!"
The speaker is talking to Ryuu-chan.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, verbs"
}
|
grammar usage:ｘもｙもｚもあります vs ｘとｙとｚはあります
I read the first sentence in a graded reader, and I'm wondering why the author chose the first grammar pattern over the second.
{ **** **** ****
**** **** ****
What is the difference in meaning between these two phrases, or, if the meaning is relatively similar, why would you choose to use one over the other?
|
See in depth explanation: Use of in this sentence.
In brief
* **** **** **** translates roughly to "There are _(many things such as)_ picture books, a piano, and a television."
* **** **** **** translates roughly to "There is a picture book, a piano, and a television _(and that's exactly it)."_
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, particle と, particle も"
}
|
Usage of じゃないか when not a tag question or a negative question
This answer had the following translation:
>
> You don't have to laugh like that.
> (Please, don't laugh at me like that!)
I haven't seen () used like this before. I would have tried to translate this as "It's ok not to laugh so much, isn't it?"
Firstly, is my translation attempt wrong? Secondly, could someone please give a bit more explanation (and maybe some examples) of how it is used in the above sentence?
|
I would say your translation is pretty good. I'd personally translate it as "There's no need to laugh that hard." is basically conveying a bit of petulance, like "this isn't necessary", or, more literally, "it's fine if you don't laugh [so much], isn't it?", rather than an actual question.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, tag question"
}
|
What's the role of the に particle in this sentence?
I'm having trouble to understand why the ni particle is being used here.
…
That's a part of Yakusoku no Neverland manga, when Emma (one of the main characters) is doubting if Gilda is a spy.
|
is equivalent of 'Oh really?'
While just means truth/real/proper
Therefore particle adds extra doubt to the sentence
Good explanation from a website:
> Hontou Ni: The word Hontou Ni has the same meaning as Hontou. However, there is a stronger emphasis on the NI so it tends to be a stronger version of the word in verbal and written form. Examples of "really" in a Japanese formal conversation is: Hontou ni hajimete desuka? (Is it really your first time?); Hontou ni yoku nite iru! (She’s really like you!); Hontou ni sono saabisu wa tadadesuka? (So is your service really free?).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": -3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, usage, particles, particle に"
}
|
How should I say someone "let me through"?
Is that right? Are there more ways of saying this? In the most natural way possible please.
|
To mean "(Someone) let me through", you can say...
> []{}
>
[]{} is the past tense form of the transitive verb []{}.
* * *
If you want to use causative, you can say {}(). The present form is . This is the causative form of the intransitive verb {}. (But I think []{}() is more common.)
* * *
>
**** is grammatically incorrect. If you're trying to say "After they checked my boarding pass one more time, they let me through", you can say...
>
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "sentence"
}
|
What is the difference between 「もらいませんか」 and 「もらいましょうか」?
I came across this fill-in-the-blanks question in a reviewer:
>
The choices are or .
My current understanding is that is of the form V- which translates to "why don't we/I V?", while is of the form V- which translates to "shall we/I V?".
If I use , then it would mean "Why don't I receive your/that luggage?".
If I use , then it would mean "Shall I receive your/that luggage?".
The correct answer was .
But don't they both mean the same thing?
What is the difference between the two and when to prefer one over the other?
|
I guess and are sometimes taught as being two similar ways to make a polite suggestion.
Indeed, they can be used with a somewhat similar meaning, for example in
> _vs_
when the context suggests
> why don't we go (together)? / would you like to go (together)? / shall we go (together)?
In fact, the two constructions actually mean something completely different:
* V + is asking (politely) if **the other person** might want to do V
* V + is _offering_ (politely) that **you** do V.
Indeed, the context could suggest translating
>
> why don't you go (without me)?
>
>
> shall I go (instead of you)?
Of course, for your example, should be the natural choice:
>
> shall **I** take the luggage?
>
>
> why don't **you** take the luggage?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, nuances, politeness, questions"
}
|
ikenai construct
zettai ni yaranakyaikenai mono ga aru toki ni
please help understand the meaning of this construct.
Does it mean - When/If not done at all?
|
-nakya is a shortened form of -nakereba, which is the negative conditional ("If it doesn't happen").
-nakereba ikenai / -nakereba naranai is a specific construct that essentially means "must" (it kind of translates to "it's forbidden to have not done").
So the fragment you have here translates to something like "When there are things you absolutely must do ..."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
kuse construct query
>
Please explain the above construct.
I know `` means habit - but it does not seem to fit here.
|
You don't tell me the context, but I can imagine it's like this:
(The man asks other people about what he doesn't know right away. He doesn't make a habit of searching by himself.)
You are right about means habit. The underlying structure is AB (A makes a habit of doing B).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Is it Amekakure or Amegakure?
In Naruto the village hidden in rain is called Amegakure in English Version and Pronounced like "Ame-ga-kure" in both Japanese and English Version.
But if you try to translate the kanji of this to English(Google Translate), we get "Ame kakure no sato" as the translation. So I was just wondering what is the correct spelling of it. Can someone help?
|
I'm not sure why you are downvoted, because I think this is an excellent question! Sometimes, when two words in Japanese combines, the beginning of the second word changes and gets `` (.)
() () is a good one, because I'd read it as "ama-gakure", so not only does "ka" get but "ame" also changes to "ama."
Here are some other examples, including my own name:
* ()+() → ()
* ()+() → ()
* ()+() → ()
As a native speaker, I know when to do this instinctively, to the point that it feels awkward to pronounce if I don't do it, but according to wikipedia, the rule apparently isn't entirely logical and deterministic(!)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "pronunciation, readings, rendaku"
}
|
「世界の何々」の表現の意味は何ですか。
{{{{{{{{{{
{{{{{{{{{{
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
|
Question regarding Zutto and Datta in the same clause
I'm still just learning Japanese,so forgive me if this is a silly question. I'm confused... How can something be "zutto" and "datta" at the same time?
**(A)** (zutto suki datta) Which I translated as " **had always liked.** " (making the "suki" past tense)
But I saw someone else translate:
**(B)** "" (zutto anata ga suki datta) as " _I’ve always loved you._ "
Which is correct? Is the "like/suki" continuous or just past tense?
|
First of all, {} is an **adjective** and not a verb, meaning there is no such thing as present or past "tense" for the word. If you knew this, I would apologize, but I had to mention it after reading your comment like "making the 'suki' past tense".
Thus, your question is actually about the tense of instead.
>
can mean both:
> 1) "I **have** always liked you."
>
> 2) "I **had** always liked you."
This "fact" always surprises English-speaking Japanese-learners because to them, those two English sentences mean very different things. 1) says "I still like you." and 2) can mean "I no longer like you."
Japanese is a highly contextual language. What the sentence means **_in terms of tenses as defined in English_** depends entirely on the context. In this particular case, it depends on whether the temporal reference point (understood by both speaker and listener) is at the present moment or a time in the past.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "grammar, tense, aspect"
}
|
How can I say "pick-up from the hotel"?
I am translating a trip schedule for a group of Japanese people coming to visit my country. I translated "pick-up from the airport" as "", but I think can only be used when you greet someone the first time they have just arrived in a place. I don't think it can be used to translate "pick-up from the hotel" for a later moment. Is understandable by Japanese people? Also, I need a noun and not a verb, since the schedule is written as a list, something like this:
> 09:00 Pick-up from the airport
>
> 18:00 Pick-up from the hotel
Thank you for your help!
|
I think you had better not use a word because it is not a common word in Japan.
I think is appropriate, and I want to change it a little like .
Another phrase I think of is , but it is a little businesslike.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, nouns"
}
|
What do ほかには and ほかのは mean?
What do and mean? How are they different from one another?
And why is used in ? Is there an explanation for it or is it just naturally said? Thanks!
|
means "Other than that..." where "that" refers to the topic you were discussing. here is working adverbially, as it would in expressions like .
means "As for the other one(s)..." To my ear, is working as a pronoun as it would be in e.g.:
>
This briefcase is heavy; the other ones are light.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word choice, particle に, particle は, particle の"
}
|
How does 初めて work with location?
Example from this article:
> **** 200
How do we know if it is:
1°)the first time that the seminar is held in ( but the seminar is not really new and has already been held in the past in other locations)
2°) The first time that the seminar is held in any location and the location is
I would like to know how to do 1°) if it is 2°) and how to do 2°) if it is 1°)
|
This is an ambiguous sentence which can be interpreted in both ways. From the context, I believe the author meant 2 because the article clearly says this seminar is a new one held by a new organization. If the sentence were **** , it would only mean 1.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
is there any evidence that ばら is commonly understood as gay
My japanese speaking but not native friend talked about a foreign friend whose name translates to "" (bara - ) with some native japanese. They quickly objected that she shouldn't call that friend as this means "gay" (homosexual) in japanese. I couldn't find any evidence for this and am curious now. The only thing I found is that the first gay magazine is called "barazoku" which could be shortened to "bara". Maybe becoming a synonym for gay. <
Is "" an actual word with the meaning "gay"? Or is it just a common term? Or is it just common in the LGBT community and most japanese would be clueless?
|
Yes implied gay several decades ago, and I believe most Japanese adults were more or less aware of this in those days. It's no longer a common metaphor.
Note that was argot for real gay relationship, if I understand correctly. Fictional male-male romance enjoyed by female audience (still known as yaoi outside of Japan) has not been referred to as . See this article for details.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "word choice, words, etymology, homonyms"
}
|
止める and 止まる being used equally
Last year, on Lang-8, I wrote a text and there was the following sentence there:
>
I tried to mean " **I** will stop to write English texts (on Lang-8)".
I have got two corrections:
> 1.
> 2.
>
Once that I tried to mean that I will stop to write in English there, is it possible to use the first sentence, with the intransitive verb , in this case? Does that sentence mean something like "it'll be stopped to write English"? Maybe my _original sentence in Japanese_ confused the corrector. The second correction, with the implied subject, that is me, sounds grammatically natural to me. I know the idea of transitivity but I got confused with these two sentences.
Besides, I have read around there that the direct object of a verb can be the topic of the sentence, switching to . Can I say that `` and `` are, at least grammatically, the same? If so, are both commonly used?
|
Only the latter one seems legitimate to me. I think you have failed to clarify the meaning when you posted the incorrect Japanese sentence.
and are both grammatically correct sentences, but they are slightly different in meaning:
* The meaning and nuance behind the phrase ""
* Particle replacing - where does the stress lie?
* " + verb" instead of " + verb"?
* Why can and sometimes be used interchangeably?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "transitivity"
}
|
What's the difference between 請求, 要求, and 需要?
Here's my take:
is like a compensation demand which is naturally expected to be satisfied or maybe even based on the law. Most examples feature bills payments.
is more like a strong demand from the other party without any implications, like a pay raise demand.
But what about the last one ? From the sample sentences I conclude this is a social/market demand, so the antonym in English would be "supplies".
Please correct or confirm my guess.
|
is a request for an item for something they have a right to have, like information or money (as a transaction).
is a demand for something, or a demand for someone to do something. Unlike , whether it is actually deserved or not is out of the question.
is the economic demand for something. If the number of sales of cars goes up dramatically, you can say the for cars increased.
To illustrate the differences by example, imagine you are in a convenience store.
* If they are very busy today with lots of customers, the for their products is high.
* If you purchase something, they will a payment for the thing you bought.
* A robber enters and will the cashier for the money in the cash register.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "synonyms, word usage"
}
|
What verb does the conjugation 満つる come from and what does it mean?
In the Tales series this verb is used as a spell chant:
> ****
But when I type in I get only . When I search in the dictionary it doesn't recognize it as a conjugation . Is this something archaic?
|
It's the attributive form of archaic {}, whose conjugation goes . (The online dictionary in your link mistakes it as godan and gives wrong "inflection". Be careful.)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "conjugations"
}
|
How to say "lacquer" when talking about food?
I found that the term or simply is used to indicated the lacquer applied to materials such as wood, but can I use the same term in a food context? I am talking about that sort of 'glaze' you can find in recipes such as this one. Thank you for your help!
|
The most generic terms would be:
Noun: {}
Noun: /{} ← act of creating/adding
Verb: /
The words and are **not** nearly as common. In fact, many would not even be familiar with them.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, words, food, jargon"
}
|
What is the meaning of this part of sentence?
I don't understand "" from this article, here is the paragraph:
> ****
Especially (I find things like but I'm not sure how it works without the at the end because I don't really understand the logic behind "" ) but even the remainder () I'm not sure how to interpret it.
|
means literally "no matter where you go", this is used like (Here is the country that has constant scenery of rice fields, no matter where you go).
However it can mean "whatever" and "no matter how", so means "If they are disliked by the AI, whatever they do.".
means "very interesting", "not lacking in interest".
Can you grasp the nuance of ?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "reading comprehension"
}
|
Is it usual for men to use な instead of ね?
I was surprised when in this video:
<
I heard instead of .
Is this because men ten to use instead of ? So maybe men would say, for example, instead of ?
|
and are semantically the same. In other words, could be used instead of and vice versa. However, it feels rough, casual and intimate when you cast it to others. Men tend to be comfortable at that point.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "particles, colloquial language, sentence final particles"
}
|
How does 移して 運ぶ function here?
The sentence in question:
For full context: <
My attempt at translation: "About the forecast for the resumption of service, none is standing so far and JR EastJapan is investigating the problem while also carrying over passengers from the stopped train to another train."
My main issue here is the because it seems to me that these two words basically form "one word"/"one meaning", but jisho doesnt list any entry for such a composition. Therefore I wanted to ask wether Im correct or completely misinterpreted it.
Furthermore, I also feel rather unsure about my understanding . I read about it here <
" As I become older, my body becomes weaker."
And to me it seemed like the only viable option here, but I might be wrong of course.
|
> {}{}
is **_not_** a set phrase of any sort, which is why it is not listed even in the largest dictionary. It is simply connecting two separate verbs by using the te-form. It just means:
> & (to transfer & transport)
**"JR is tranferring the passengers from the train in trouble to a new one AND taking/transporting them (someplace)."**
And your understanding of seems good. It is used to talk about two things happening simultaneously.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Question about the uses of "を" particle besides being a "direct object" and "spatial object" marker
I know that the former is for transitive verbs and the latter is for intransitive verbs (specifically motion verbs like ) but how do I explain the following sentence:
>
At first, I thought that it's just one of those cases where the verb is not so clearly defined as either transitive or intransitive but the dictionary clearly shows that it has a transitive equivalent "" , so why not just use the transitive one "" instead of using the intransitive one ""? Is there a subtle difference in its meaning ?
|
{} is both an intransitive and transitive verb; therefore, {} is in the standard "noun + + transitive verb".
is not a motion verb in the first place, so the famous "noun + + intransitive motion verb" structure is not applicable here. Since that has been discussed here multiple times already, I will not go into it here. I am, of course, referring to phrases such as {} **** {}{} **** {}, etc.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, word choice, particle を, transitivity"
}
|
Use of 余裕で in this context
I understand that means margin, leeway, as well as composure or comfort that seems to intuitively follow from the original meaning. However in this sentence it seems to be used in a negative sense, unless I'm misunderstanding here. The sentence itself (context is talking about band rehearsal):
> 1
Is it being used here to describe him as failing by a large margin? And looking through Google, and seem to see some use as well. Any clarification or corrections of any misunderstandings I have would be appreciated.
|
means generally what you said. But it is sometimes used in negative situation and emphasizes the negative situation.
However it is not formal usage and mainly used among young people. Young people sometimes use a word like that, for example, "badly" in English, don't they?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
JLPT question - what does のには mean in this sentence/
_______
And answers are:
The correct one is , but I don't understand why.
|
the of in this sentence is attached to to form which is equivalent to **** the means "by" and the is a topic marker, and together they refer back to and means that this is what is causing her to have become
Hahaoya wa iyana kao hitotsu shinakatta ga, musume no shokuseikatsu ga dondon hen ni **natteikuno** ni wa komatteita.
A Japanese native will probably come along in a bit and give more detail, but I hope my explanation is understandable.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Can アジアンビューティー be negative?
In a scene from a manga classmates are talking about an arrogant pretty girl who's only popular with boys. One of the girls says:.
Is that supposed to sound negative? How so? My first thought was that it's some slang for a prostitute or an "easy girl" but I haven't been able to confirm this. On the internet I found conflicting opinions, so I'm not sure what to think. Is this one of these tricky terms that a foreigner probably just shouldn't use?
|
No, it doesn't have connotation like you thought, though I'm not sure what the manga means by it. It's just ~~a vague~~ an obscure katakana word and it's not settled down how it's used or what it connotes.
It's vague not because it has many meanings or is complicated but because it's not shared among many speakers and nothing has been decided yet.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "meaning, manga"
}
|
携帯電話をポケットに入れて歩く「うちに」is using うちに with short "situation" proper?
So I was doing a JLPT test, and have found a question like this:
> _____
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The one that seemed to be fitting was , so I have chosen it and it turned to be good answer, however I read that should be used with long events, so my question is whether it is proper Japanese or not.
|
It's proper Japanese and usually stands for an action that takes a certain duration.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
How would you say 'a fork is a tool you eat with'?
It's kind of a silly sentence, but I was wondering how you would get the particle's meaning into a modified noun. Like you could say '' but how could you turn that into a noun? I hope this makes sense.
|
Generally, is not used like . If you want to use no matter what, you can say , but it is wordy.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, relative clauses"
}
|
Not using くて in i-adjective Conjunctions
I've been reading from this website.
I've come across a sentence that puzzles me grammatically:
> ****
Here, there is a conjunction of two i-adjectives, but the writer doesn't use to join them (to say . I wonder why this is so?
|
In general, this pattern is found when the second adjective and the following noun are treated as one set phrase. (Compare "a kind old man" vs "a kind and old man" in English; "old man" is clearly treated as a set phrase in the former case.) In addition, is often avoided in lyrics or poems where people sometimes ignore formal grammar in favor of rhythm.
But this does not explain your example since this text is prose and is not a set phrase. I think this modifies both and because a fruit gets softer as it ripens. So, in your case, I think is better, and I don't see any good reason to prefer here. It doesn't sound terribly bad, either, so I think you can regard this as a trivial mistake, and get moving.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "i adjectives, conjunctions"
}
|
Confusion with だけに vs. だけあって
> _______
>
> a)
> b)
> c)
> d)
Answers say that A is proper, but according to my knowledge a and b are synonymous (though can be used when the result is negative, while cannot).
Why isn't B a valid answer as well?
|
Sometimes and are interchangeable sometimes they aren't.
In the case they are interchangeable is when the result is what is to be expected. For example, and are natural.
In the case they are not interchangeable is when the result is whether to be expected or not. is used for the result that is expected, is used for the result that is not expected. For example, is more natural than because the result caused by the reason is what is to be expected. On the other hand, is natural, not because the result is not what is to be expected.
As for your sentence, the result caused by the reason is what is to be expected, so they may be interchangeable. However if I am asked which one is better when the result is what is to be expected , I will answer is better.
Source:<
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "grammar, jlpt"
}
|
What is いやほい from the Kyary Pamyu Pamyu song 原宿いやほい HARAJUKU IYAHOI?
What does mean in this context? Or is it nonsense or onomatopeia? I'm not finding a conclusive result in the dictionary.
Results I get are, for instance:
which could be disagreeable, increasingly, no, head house, birthplace, originator
which could be linen kariginu, supplement, heave-ho, yes, one's real intent
So... "no-yes"...? "linen kariginu originator"...? ...?
|
Most native speakers haven't heard before this song. When an announcer asked the lyricist about this word on Nov/11/2015, he said something along the lines of "The meaning is not known and each person has their own way of interpreting it". So it's basically his made-up word which just sounded nice to him.
Still, I feel this is meant to sound like a symbolic , something like "Yo Ho" (of pirates) or "Heigh-Ho" (of dwarfs in Snow White). Some people seem to believe this had been actually used among young people around Harajuku, but I could not find a definitive evidence for that.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "song lyrics, music"
}
|
一 (いち) before nouns
I sometimes come across expressions like this:
> "" (definition of )
>
> ""(definition of )
Basically you have a noun which is preceded by . I interpret this as a way to say "a specific ...", like "". Do you even pronounce it ? Is it natural to do it with any kind of noun, or only with sinojapanese nouns?
|
This is the use of {} as a **_prefix_** and yes, it is read . It can be used with all types of nouns -- Yamato, Sino-loanwords and katakana words.
When used with **_inanimate_** objects as in your examples, means **_"a certain ~~", "a certain type/kind of ~~"_** , etc.
{} would be too strong a word choice for the translation in most cases. It would be more natural to use {}, etc.
When used with **_animate_** nouns, becomes more nuanced and the " + noun" is usually, if not always, followed immediately by ("as a ~~").
We say things like {}{}{}, etc. When we use these phrases, we are being a little more humble about who/what we are than when we just say without the prefix.
in this usage means practically the same thing as {} (" **a mere ~~** ").
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "nouns, prefixes"
}
|
～てたまらない、～てならない、～しようがない
> _______
>
> a)
> b)
> c)
> d)
The answer says that answer is b). According to my research is used for feelings, and when something for some reason is impossible, but I have found translations as extremely.
Also read this post, but it seems the nuance would be different, but answers would still fit. Contrasting and
|
IMHO, b) and c) are equally correct. Both and refer to a strong and uncontrollable desire, which fits in this context well. The difference between them is small, but maybe sounds slightly more negative (i.e., may imply it's not considered good to do it). In this case, saying c) might have a slightly stronger implication that it's bad to prematurely use a new technology.
At least in modern Japanese, is mainly used with adjectives and verbs that represent the speaker's own spontaneous feelings (e.g. , , ), but is simply uncommon. In BCCWJ, there are only two examples of (and one example of ). But according to this article, 100 (includes many older novels) has 11 examples of , so it may have been more common in the past. I don't see any reason why is "incorrect", but I can say it's stiff and uncommon today.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, jlpt"
}
|
Difference between からして and からすれば
> _______
>
> a)
> b)
> c)
> d)
is the proper answer. According to a post I have found it seems to be used when judgment is based on the objective factors, and is more of an opinion than judgment. Is it correct reasoning? I assume to be an objective data.
|
In this case I believe , , and are interchangeable, and c) and d) are both correct answers. You can actually find many examples of on the net. Maybe is relatively stiff and is relatively casual among the four.
Note that has other meanings ("starting with", "even from", "even") which is discussed here. According to :
> ###
>
> ①
>
> ②……
>
> ③……
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, nuances, jlpt"
}
|
Can someone identify this stamp in a Bible that allowed my roommate's Grandpa to keep it in a POW camp in WW2?
Can someone identify this stamp in a Bible that allowed my roommate's Grandpa to keep it in a POW camp in WW2?
Normally Bibles would have been forbidden but apparently this stamp that was inspected regularly allowed him to keep it throughout the war. He never knew what it said only that it let him keep it. I'd like to be able to tell him what it means before he passes on.
![Stamp in WW2 Japanese POW Camp Bible](
|
It says {}"ken'etsuzumi", which means "inspected". The kanji are of the old style.
The presently-used kanji are .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 34,
"question_score": 22,
"tags": "translation, history, kyūjitai and shinjitai"
}
|
What does the warrior in the red armor, Hirotaro, say in the Last Samurai movie?
In the movie Last Samurai, Hirotaro has only one line in the whole movie.
I tried some years ago to understand and "decipher" his words, but I couldn't and I blamed it on my lack of knowledge. Now that my is much better, I still fail to grasp what he says. Maybe it is in _old_ language, Samurai dialect of some sort.
Here's the link to it, time marker included: <
The subtitle says "He's mine".
My only guess is that he might have said "" in a bit twisted manner. No marker is not impossible in 'hard' language, and () makes sense to be used instead of or , since is an older form and male term, and the story takes place during 1870-1877. However, what I hear is at best "washi yeru", which is not very encouraging.
Any ideas are welcome.
|
He says **** ("I'll do it. = I'll behead him.")
The reason that you are not hearing the would probably be this:
The nasal allophones of /g/
Note that I specifically mentioned the particle in my answer in the thread above.
It seems {} is not too widely taught in Japanese-as-a-foreign-language, I am afraid.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "listening"
}
|
What is the proper way to ask for date format preference in a program?
I have a simple program that allows users to choose what date format they want to see.
In English I ask something like this:
Day/Month/Year or Month/Day/Year
Abbreviated would be this:
DD/MM/YYYY or MM/DD/YYYY
How would you present this question in Japanese? Is it acceptable to use the Roman letter abbreviation or is there a better way?
Similarly, 12 or 24 hour time preference. Should I say `` or `` versus English numerals?
|
Practically speaking, the only format used and understood in Japan is "year/month/day" (e.g., `2018/6/21` or `18/06/21`). So you don't have to let users choose. "British style" (`21/6/2018`) and "American style" (`6/21/2018`) are both out of the question, especially when you target only at older Japanese people who are unlikely to understand easy English words. But if you really want to make it configurable, a reasonable choice will look like `//` or `//`, where the kanji means "year", means "month" and means "day".
If you really want to allow users to choose between "15:00" and "3:00 PM", the word for "24-hour system" is 24, and "12-hour system" is 12. Rest assured that everyone understands `AM` and `PM`. Numbers themselves should be Arabic numerals, not kanji.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation, time"
}
|
Use of の in article about beetle
I was reading this article and there are a couple of spots that I don't understand when it comes the grammar.
> ****
Roughly: The specialist said 'It is the first time I have seen a beetle that has a male and female body'
Why/What is the purpose of the bolded ? Why does it comes after ? particles that look like this come up a few times in the article actually
|
The particle we're talking about here is a nominalizer, basically it turns verbs into nouns, so that you can work with them in the way you work with nouns, like turning them into topics, subjects, direct objects, and so on.
I'll try to illustrate some quick examples here:
> - Tori wo mita. (I saw a bird)
>
> **** - Kare ga hashitteiru **no** wo mita. (I saw him running)
**You can't use the direct object particle with a verb , so you use in order to get that result.**
That applies to all different particles, like for instance:
> - Suugaku wa muzukashii. (Math is hard.)
>
> **** - Yasai wo taberu **no** wa muzukashii. (It is hard to eat vegetables.)
Once more, is nominalizing the verb so that you can use the particle with it.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, verbs, particle の"
}
|
What is なく doing in this sentence?
While reading the light novel for I came across this sentence in the first chapter:
>
Is using `` here equivalent to using `` or does it have a different meaning altogether?
|
The is the of used in the sense of:
> 10 ―― () ― ()
can be attached to a noun, forming an i-adjective with a negative meaning ("without~~"). A few more examples: []{}[]{}[]{}[]{}
[]{} in your example is the , or the adverbial form, of , i.e. +.
Examples: []{}[]{}
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "grammar, literature"
}
|
Confusion about conditional だと used in article about beetle
I was reading this article and I am not too sure about sentence I came across.
> ... ****
I have a few problem areas here. I read it as: The boy said 'If the beetle is rare then understand and very happy'
I believe is being used a a conditional here. So to me the part means: If/When the beetle is rare. But After that it falls a part as I'm not sure how should be handled
|
is not being used as a conditional. In fact, is being using as a quotation particle. When using the verb to express that you understand a statement, you use the form:
`statement + `.
In this case the statement would be (i.e. it’s a rare beetle).
In this case we also have in its form to produce the compound sentence:
The boy said ‘I know that it’s a rare beetle _and_ I’m very happy about it’.
(Or something along those lines)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, verbs, particle と, conditionals"
}
|
What does it mean when you add 'おっか' to the stem of a verb?
I've been reading, playing, and watching a lot of Japanese content recently and I keep running into this construction. I feel like I get the gist of it's meaning but I don't know exactly what it means. Here are a few examples of what I've come across: , , and .
|
This is just a rendering of a colloquial pronunciation of volitional (-) + . So, (), that is, "Shall we have something to drink?".
The first example should be , by the way.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, meaning, verbs"
}
|
Is it possible to use いざ知らず with verbs?
According to N1, the grammar for is:
> Noun + /
However, I think I've seen it used with verbs too as:
> Verb +
Is this possible? If so, what about using it with other conditionals such as and ? Could anyone provide examples, please?
Many thanks!
|
I don't see any reason that it can't be used with a verb, as long as the verb is followed by :
> Verb + +
If you do a search on Google for ”” you'll find a very small number of hits, so it doesn't seem to be very common. However, one of the hits is an article on Asahi.com so it seems likely to be proper grammar.
The specific sentence is this:
> ****
EDIT:
As there was still some doubt about this I'd like to point out that the phrase means something like the below: (reference)
>
So I think the important thing here is , and there isn't necessarily set word(s) that must fall before it.
To give a simpler example of using a verb with this, consider this phrase:
>
This would translate roughly to "I don't know whether you can do that type of thing..."
I don't think there is too much limit on what can go before , though it must be grammatically sound. For example, "" would be awkward and improper grammar. But as long as there is a after the verb I think it is valid.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What does どぼり mean?
I know that it's an onomatopoeia, and it's an adverb that can take the particle.
The context goes something like this. There is an object. The object in question is filled with a liquid. The object also has an opening in it. The liquid spills out, flows out, gushes out, and so on. () is attached to the said action of the liquid.
I looked on Denshi Jisho, and it has nothing on it. I looked on Weblio, and it has nothing on it. I even looked on this one website that lists sound effects, and there was nothing.
So does anyone know what it means?
|
is a variant of . The latter should be listed in any good dictionary. explains it this way.
> {} ****
>
> The sake made a gurgling sound as he poured it into his cup.
(That English is a "free" translation by the dictionary. The subject of the original is an unmentioned person and not .)
Even Jisho has , too.
You might want to remember that many onomatopoeias related to liquid movements will start with a ** + b** as in , etc.
Finally, it is so hot today that I just want to **** {}{} after posting this answer.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "definitions, onomatopoeia"
}
|
How do I ask 'what is this place'?
I'm just starting learning Japanese, and I have a question about . Can I use it in the situation, when someone shows me around, takes me to an interesting place, and I want to ask what is this place?
>
>
>
How do I ask 'what is this place'?
|
both of those, coming from a beginner in Japanese, being lead around by a native, would almost certainly be understood. Especially with gestures thrown in to help indicate what you mean. However,
literally means "Where are we?/Where am I?"
is closer to what you're trying to ask, but is a bit simplistic.
{} Is probably closer to what you mean to ask, and means "what kind of store is this?" ... If you want to specifically use the word "place" then replace "mise" with "tokoro"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "questions"
}
|
Formal, feminine first-person pronoun
I am writing a scene (in English, with occasional Japanese for flavor and difficult-to-translate terms) where a rather androgynous woman is in a Tokyo department store, speaking with a store clerk. She is dressed in a fairly masculine fashion, and binding her breasts; her voice is more feminine than masculine, but not unambiguously so.
This character will be speaking with the appropriate level of formality, customer to store employee, and wishes to make it clear, in these circumstances, that she is a woman. I am wondering if she can choose a pronoun toward that end.
Looking at Wikipedia’s list, I don’t see a formal first-person pronoun used only by women. is only feminine in informal speech; is always informal. Is there no good way for her to convey her gender with the pronoun? If there’s no really good choice, is there a least-bad choice?
|
We do not have an exact pronoun that you are looking for.
is the most formal, but it is **completely** gender-free.
**** is **mostly** feminine, if not completely, and it is a tiny bit less formal than for using the . Perhaps it is a good candidate, all things considered. At least, I could not think of a better pronoun for your purpose.
In Japanese fiction, **** (more often written **** ) is often used as part of "role language" for a sophisticated dame. Fake or real sophistication, it does not matter.
(I said "mostly feminine" above because despite the wide-spread rumor among Japanese-learners, quite a few older gentlemen [especially around Tokyo] do use **** and **** . They used to use **** as well.)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "formality, pronouns, gender, first person pronouns"
}
|
What is the difference between するはずだった andしたはずだった
I have confusion with the past tense of verb combined with the past tense of
From what I understand:
1. - Supposed to do verb at some point in the future (don't know outcome yet)
2. - Verb is supposed to happen at some point in the past (don't know whether the verb happened)
3. - Verb was supposed to happen (but it didn't) - am I speaking in the present?
4. - Verb was supposed to happen in the past? (but it didn't)
For example, what are the differences between 3 and 4 in this sentence?
> 1. **** \- She is supposed to call by 1 o'clock
>
> 2. **** \- I suppose she called by 1 o'clock
>
> 3. **** \- She was supposed to call by 1 o'clock
>
> 4. **** \- She was supposed to have called by 1 o'clock?
>
>
And in this sentence:
> **X** ?
Which is correct (X) and why?
1.
2.
3.
|
The sentence 3 means "She was supposed to call by 1 o'clock, but she didn't.
The sentence 4 means "She was supposed to have called by 1 o'clock, but we don't know she actually called by 1 o'clock. She may misunderstand it".
As for your second question, is best.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, word choice, nuances, tense"
}
|
What is the meaning of いくらもしないうちに from Spice and Wolf?
I have been reading Spice and Wolf with relative ease. Alas, I understand everything in the following phrase
>
except for (most especially the bolded) " **** "
How does one go about thinking through this phrase?
|
> : It was unfortunate that you couldn't drink sake with , but anyway once Horo appears he will chase the outsiders and the matsuri will become more interesting.
is an expression that means "right after, soon".
is an expression that means "anyway".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What's the difference between というか and というより?
From what I know, both and are used to correct or improve on a previous statement, but are there any differences between them? For example, are the following two sentences different?
> ****
>
> ****
|
Based on my personal reflection, when people utter **AB** they tend not to prepare what they exactly want to say as _B_ when they start to say it; e.g. your friend suddenly see something and say "That's _A_!", then you see it too and find it not as much _A_ at once, so you just start to utter _A_ ... while searching for whatever word it really seems to you. The particle represents such kind of hesitation.
On the other hand, I think they tend to use **AB** when they are already confident of _B_ , or at least have something in their mind when they start to say this phrase.
You can also put in the beginning of sentence to mean "by the way" or "apart from that" in very casual conversation. does not have this usage but you have as a synonym to this except it has less colloquial vibe.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, word choice"
}
|
What does this sentence about 生活用水 mean?
> (article)
The difficulty I have is that according to this definition of , is one of the utilizations so I don't know how I should interpret the sentence since if the waters are recognized as suitable for , they should also be suitable for .
What I understand from the japanese sentence: "Excepting the wells where the usage of the water as a drinking water is approved,using the water as a daily life water is generally acceptable".
If a certain water is not approved as a drinking water, it also shouldn't be approved as a "daily life water" since in the japanese definition of the japanese term for daily life water, drinking is one of the daily life uses. So it doesn't seem to make sense to separate waters according to these two terms.
|
Yes, in principle, the term should include drinking water as well, especially when contrasted with "industrial water" or "agricultural water". But in this context you have no choice but understanding this word as "domestic water other than drinking" because the article repeatedly reminds us so.
>
>
> 96
>
>
I don't particularly find the usage very strange, probably because when we simply say "use water" in Japanese (not sure whether in English), we don't typically associate with "drinking". (Just in case, means "water for use" or "water usage" literally.) It's something like a mismatch that all of us now know _shellfish_ and _jellyfish_ are not _fish_ while still calling them so.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "reading comprehension"
}
|
How can I say of a person that he or she has an open or closed personality?
How can I say of a person that he or she has an open or closed personality? Is there a standard adjective for that?
|
I think a good fit for "open" and "closed personality" are and . Informally, you can also use for .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "word requests, adjectives, english to japanese"
}
|
The Japanese term for "synonym discussion"?
In English, when I want to know the subtle differences in meaning between similar words I consult a thesaurus's synonym discussion. To give an example of this, see halfway down Merriam-Webster's thesaurus page for the word "ponder". Several English thesauruses have them, but not all thesauruses do.
Is there a term for this which Japanese thesauruses conventionally use?
|
The similar section in a Japanese thesaurus names itself **** --"usage differentiation" or "using accordingly", and I think this is a pretty stable choice of word. It however does not contain the word "synonym", which, in the case you want specify, could be added like .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice, nuances, word requests"
}
|
In terms of “this school”, what is the difference between この学校, 本校, and 当校?
So, when I typed “this school” in the Weblio search, it brought up these three terms: , , and .
* I know that means “this”.
* definitely means “school”.
* means “school”, but it seems to need a modifier most of the time.
* means “this”, “the same”, “present”, “in question”, “head”, “main”, “real”, and “regular”.
* means “this”, “the present”, and “the current”.
Let me try an example. I went to a school for a year before I dropped out. If I refer to it as “this school” after I dropped out, which term should I choose?
If I knew the difference, it would probably make it easier to pick one!
|
> I went to a school for a year before I dropped out. If I refer to it as “this school” after I dropped out, which term should I choose?
[]{}
XXXX…XX
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word choice, words"
}
|
Is it possible that "何度も" could be translated as "Nothing or anything"?
So I was reading "BTS, No more dream" Japanese lyrics, and I encountered this line:
> "You tell me [!]
And it was translated like this:
> You tell me [I can't do anything!]
I looked up in dictionary and it was translated as "Many times or Often".
So can you tell me why does it mean "anything or nothing" here?
Thanks in advance.
Shahrzad Parvizi.
|
First of all, the translation you looked up is wrong. If anything, it might be related to the fact that this is from a Korean (i.e. non-native speaker) rap song. (Thanks for pointing that out @ericfromabeno!)
Lets break it down:
**:** many times over/often
**:** imparitive form of , or `to do; to undertake; to perform`
So I would run the translation as follows:
>
> Do it often!
Or, in terms of the feel:
> Keep doing it!
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
What is the difference between the two sentences?
>
>
>
I was looking for a way to say: **" Who is that person?"**, And I found these two ways of doing it. What is the difference between these two?.
I found the first sentence in Minna no Nihongo book. Any help will be welcome.
|
> {}
>
> {}
The only difference is the overall politeness and respect being expressed. The first sentence shows more respect toward the person being talked about.
is the honorific form of and , of , respectively.
Thus, the second sentence is very plain and treats "that person" with no particular respect.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
What does よ bring in 「〜ないでよね」？
I sometimes hear or read sentences such as:
1.
2.
I get and but I wonder what nuance is added when both of them are used like in these examples.
I have the feeling that these are often used by young girls but I am not sure. Can it be used by men too?
|
It's basically the same as (imperative +) , i.e. request ~~when the listener doesn't seem to share the same recognition as the speaker~~ when you doubt that the opponent does it.
In falling tone*1, it stands for complaint as well as , and extra softens it, sort of.
(*1 **Edit** : I wrote "falling tone" because of similarity to falling , but I should have written it as "lower intonation" or so. This pronounced lower than that of the below, but it can be still higher than the preceding per se. So, it's actually not "falling".)
In rising tone*2, it sounds more imploring than simple (imperative +) , which prompts attention to not forget about it.
(*2 This "rising tone" means that is pronounced higher than . If you further pronounce itself in sharp falling tone, it functions as (imperative +) with interjection , and the result is roughly the same.)
And, now that you mention it, it could sound a little too wimpy for men to use, though I think it depends on people, after all.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "nuances, particles, て form, imperatives, particle ね"
}
|
Multiple verbs as noun modifiers
I am trying to say something like "The button labeled 'blue' at the lower right is red."
I know that adjectives can be connected together with their -form. It seems like maybe the the same should happen with verbs, but the ordering and sentence connection implied by the -form makes this sound awkward to me. For some reason, I also cannot find examples on this.
The two verbs I am thinking of are and (labeled?).
My current translation is blue
May someone explain how to connect with multiple noun-modifying verbs? Also, what is a natural translation for my example sentence?
Thanks.
|
I think you are referring to when verbs are connected by the form because you want to express that their tense is identical and the two or more verbs are connected in sequence.
I washed the apple and ate it.
but when verbs are used to modify a noun, you need the verb tenses to agree with the state of the thing they are modifying.
So "The button (that **is** ) on the bottom right, **labelled** "blue" **is** red." should be translated **** blue **** ****
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, usage, verbs"
}
|
Does 'yuki' really mean happiness?
Besides the obvious 'snow', someone listed the name Yuki on a name website as also meaning happiness, blessing, or good fortune using the characters . Dictionaries list that can become / / / / / / / / / . Yu and Yuki are listed at the end, but is it accurate to say that this name means happiness?
|
> Does 'yuki' really mean happiness?
I feel like this is a loaded question, so let's break it down.
* The character means "happiness".
* If the name is written using this kanji, then it also means "happiness".
* by itself does not necessarily mean anything— and simply represent sounds.
* However, context could easily provide a meaning to those sounds, and as a word has several different meanings.
* If you knew someone named 'Yuki' who spelled it simply (or possibly ), it might not have any meaning.
* If you see someone's name written as , you'd be wise not to assume it's read as (or anything else).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 12,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning, names"
}
|
What is the difference between あお and あおい?
I know means "blue (adj.)" and means "the color blue". What does "blue (adj.)" mean? Like "I am feeling blue?"
**Note** I have just started with Japanese. I am on first column of Hiragana. I did do google search but I wasn't able to understand the answers that come up.
|
Technically, is a noun. You would use it as you would use other descriptive nouns (i.e. `noun is [descriptive noun]`). For example:
>
> The ball is blue.
>
>
> The sky is blue.
Obviously, construction can get more complex, but the general idea will stay the same. You'll get the hang of it when you start to deal more with descriptive nouns.
is an adjective describing something as blue. For example:
> {}
> blue ball
>
>
> blue sky
The idiom `I'm feeling blue` will never have a literal translation in Japanese, since and are only used in relation to color. Colors typically cannot be applied to feelings like the English counterpart is in this idiom.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "adjectives, colors"
}
|
Usages of 与えられる
I'm particularly confused by X where X refers to the object being given.
Consider:
> .
>
>> () seems to mark the action-er doing ; the object of ; and the receiver of .
Using the passive form,
> .
>
>> () seems to mark the receiver of ; the object of ; and () the action-er of .
However, this usage confuses me:
> , .
>
>> In this sentence, seems to mark the object that is given instead of the receiver, and seems to mark the receiver.
Am I missing something here? Why does and take different functions using the same passive construction? Do I have to just memorise these different usages?
|
No you're not missing anything.
And those usages are not different from any other verb in the passive form. isn't a special one.
**Edit:**
The differences between the last two sentences are:
* In , we know who the giver is.
* In , we don't know who the giver is.
* In , the is being marked as the topic of the sentence.
* In , the topic of the sentence is not directly specified.
In English:
> **** : **He** has been given a by
>
> **** : A has been given **to him**
We can see this pattern with a lot of other verbs:
> **X** **Y** **Z** : **X** has been done **Z** by **Y**
>
> **X** **Z** : **Z** has been done by **X**
This is a basic usage of the passive form
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Difference between 冗談 and ジョーク?
I have encountered two words for "joke": {} and .
What is the difference in meaning or usage between the two? I have tried Googling but found nothing particularly helpful.
|
Technically, I don't think there is much of a semantic difference.
However, I feel that is much more commonly used and I would generally suggest this if you aren't sure which to use. For example it's normal to say "”, but I've never heard "" before (or very rarely).
As usual with loanwords, I think you'll find the younger generations are using more of them and then older generations using less, so I'd guess would be more commonly used by younger people. (Though I don't have stats to back that up).
The only phrase I can think of off hand with is ””, and that is fitting because the first part of the phrase is also a loanword (or at least written in Katakana).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
What does 私が mean in this context?
> **** (source)
Also, I'm not sure about the meaning of (since it's in kana, I'm not even sure which verb it is, I found two verbs with similar meanings that could fit according to the J-E dictionary : and ) ...?
|
marks the performer of the action (the subject) which is:
> : I will (be able to) do it without shame
is :
<
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "reading comprehension"
}
|
くださるんじゃ...: Formal, semi-casual, poor usage, etc.?
> …
*From Japanesetest4you.
**My understanding:**
1. **** is the honorific version of ****
2. **** is from **** , **explanatory**
3. **** , contracted **** , usually in the form of **rhetorical ** , or the slangy ****
**My problem here:**
1. Is **** left out of the sentence? I think I've only seen **/** so far.
2. **** is **** unless I had been hopelessly mistaken for months. However, this **** somehow looks, and sounds really casual to me. Is the speaker sneaking in a hint of **** in the guise of ****? I also feel that by speaking this way, the speaker is hiding a sense of affected ignorance of responsibility, but I may be reading too much into this.
|
1. or something similar is left out after ...
The full sentence would be like:
> ****
but it's quite common to cut off sentences like this in daily conversation. And I think you'd usually sound a bit less decisive/interrogatory and therefore a bit more humble and softer when speaking this way.
Example:
**** →
* * *
2. You're right that … is a bit more casual than …. / would sound more formal.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "keigo"
}
|
Volitional: 見せましょう does not mean "let's have a look"?
>
>
> 1\.
> 2\.
> 3\.
Source: Japanesetest4you
Option 1 means, "Please have a look," using the honorific equivalents of **** and ****. This does not fit the context.
Option 2 is the given answer, to which I have no objection. However, I feel that option 3 is also a viable choice, because **** means **to show something**. Saying **** seems to me like the **** is allowing the **** to show them the ****. I think this can be thus translated into English: **Let's have a look right away then!**
If my understanding of this usage of the volitional form is correct, why is option 3 not correct?
|
would literally translate to "Let's show it (to someone else)!"
So it's not something that a boss would say to a subordinate who is trying to ask them to look at something.
Possibly could be said by a boss at this point, though that seems a bit too relaxed a response, it would translate to "Let's look (at it) (together). However, since the subordinate is asking the boss to check something, in theory because his authority is needed, or his input is what is valued, there is little reason for him to suggest looking at it together with the subordinate.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "volitional form"
}
|
simple response to question
>
I would like to say so that I can read go book but I can only say I read go book.
>
**EDIT**
Perhaps I can say:
>
|
you could say
"because I want to read Go books."
or
"because I want to be able to read Go books."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
What does ウ○ク mean in ウ○クの方の、中○、韓○嫌いは異常。?
So, I was looking on OKWAVE, because I wanted to know if anyone is asking about xenophobia in Japan.
So there is a question asking, “” This can be translated as “What do you think about xenophobia?”
In one of the responses to this question, it discusses hatred between countries and how extreme it can get. It brings up the following sentence: “”
I am pretty sure that is a censorship symbol. I heard that there is pretty extreme hatred between Japan and China as well as Japan and both Koreas, but I didn't think it got to the point of partly censoring the names of those countries in Japanese.
I think the sentence says something like, “Their hatred for people of ???, China, and South Korea is unusual.”
Does anyone have a clue what means?
|
It's ,[]{} "the right wing".
>
"The right wingers' hatred toward China and Korea is unusual/insane."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "meaning, words, definitions"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.